New Delhi: The Manipur High Court has set aside a state government detention order for a man under the National Security Act (NSA), holding that the authorities cannot prescribe a time limit for a detenu to make a representation against his preventive detention.
Chief Justice M. Sundar and Justice Ahanthem B Singh on 9 June quashed the detention orders of the 22‑year‑old, holding that the clause in the detention order giving him only three weeks to make a representation, violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees that the right to representation remains in force as long as the detention order operates.
Preventive detention means holding someone in custody just on the suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. Its purpose is not to punish a person for a past offence but to prevent him from committing an offence in the near future.
The court clarified that Section 10 of the NSA governs the government’s duty to place detention material before the Advisory Board within three weeks, but it does not limit the detenu’s right to represent his case before the appropriate authority.
The NSA mandates the Advisory Board—consisting of persons who are qualified to be or have been judges of a high court—to review the detention order, hears the detenu if requested, and gives its opinion on whether there is sufficient cause for continued detention.
If the board opined that there is sufficient ground to warrant the preventive detention, it approves the detention order, or it has to be revoked.
Section 10 of the NSA simply says that the government must, within three weeks of a person’s detention, place the detention order, its grounds, and any representation made by the detenu before the Advisory Board for review.
Also Read: NSA was imposed on Manipur activist Erendro on basis of 5 cases, but probe not completed in 4
The facts of the case
The youth was first arrested in December 2025 under an Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 (UAPA) FIR. The FIR also contained charges under the Arms Act and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.
This arrest came against the backdrop of continuing violence and instability in Manipur, where repeated clashes between security forces and local groups had led authorities to invoke stringent laws like the UAPA and NSA more frequently.
The state justified his detention on the ground that his alleged activities were prejudicial to public order and national security, reflecting a broader pattern of preventive detentions being used during the ongoing crisis.
While the 22-year-old was already in detention in the UAPA case, the District Magistrate, Imphal East, issued a preventive detention order against him under Section 10 of NSA on March 8, which was confirmed in April against him, citing security concerns.
This meant that even though he was already in judicial custody, the state layered on preventive detention to ensure he remained confined.
In this case, two different legal tracks overlapped: the FIR under UAPA and the preventive detention order under NSA.
Under the UAPA, the state had 90 days to file a charge sheet or seek an extension up to 180 days. By April 2026, that deadline expired, by means of inaction and the state neither filed a final report nor sought extension.
This lapse meant the detenu was entitled to default bail in the UAPA case.
Instead of pursuing that prosecution properly, the state issued a fresh detention order under the NSA to keep him in custody.
The detention order contained a clause that he could make representations to the state and Central governments only within three weeks of detention.
Believing he had lost the right to make a representation against the detention order after 30 March, the detenu refrained from filing any representation.
His father challenged the detention order through a habeas corpus writ petition, arguing that the time restriction infringed Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The state argued that the three-week period was drawn from Section 10 of the NSA, which requires the government to place the detention order and any representation before the Advisory Board within three weeks.
The District Magistrate claimed that the clause was merely intended to inform the detenu that if he makes a representation within three weeks, the same will be placed before the Advisory Board.
Judicial reasoning
The court clarified that Section 10 of NSA governs the government’s duty to act within three weeks, not the detenu’s right to represent.
The Bench relied on its own rulings and SC ruling in the Prem Lata Sharma v. District Magistrate, Mathura (1998) that there can be no period of limitation regarding exercise of the right of a detenu to make a representation, such a right subsists so long as the preventive detention order continues to operate.
The High Court found that this detention order was unconstitutional because it wrongly imposed a three‑week limit on the detenu’s right to make representations, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Therefore, the NSA detention order collapsed and the parallel UAPA FIR succumbed too since the state missed its deadlines.
On that ground, the court quashed the detention order, its approval, and confirmation and directed release, unless required in another case.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: New Delhi prefers to look at Manipur as a horizontal problem, not vertical